I am writing in reference to your
claim for benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program Act (EEOICPA).

If you are not already aware,
employees who worked at Westinghouse Electric Corp. in Bloomfield, New Jersey, for at least 250 work days during the timeframe from August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1949, were added to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) effective
May 5, 2010. Our records indicate you have verified employment that is
potentially located at Westinghouse Electric Corp. during this timeframe. We
are in the process of re-examining your case to determine if you qualify for
benefits under the rules of this new SEC class. This may not result in an
acceptance of your claim.

In order to begin this process, I
must first vacate our previous decision(s) and reopen your case. The attached
Director’s Order explains the reason why the prior decision(s) is being vacated
and your case reopened. Please read this Order very carefully. If any of the
basic information has changed since your final decision was issued (such as
medical condition(s) or employment dates), please contact this office
immediately and ask for your assigned claims examiner. Your information will
be incorporated into your case file and considered in our decision. Once we
have completed our review of your file, a new recommended decision will be
issued concerning your eligibility under this SEC designation.

If you have any questions about
the Director’s Order, please feel free to call my office, toll free, at: (xxx)
xx-xxxx.

Sincerely,

{Name of District Director}

District Director

EMPLOYEE: [Employee
Name]

CLAIMANT: [Claimant(s)
Name]

FILE NUMBER: [Last
4 Digits ofFile Number]

DOCKET NUMBER: [Insert
Docket Number]

DIRECTOR’S ORDER

On {date} you were issued a final decision denying your
claim for benefits under [Part B] of the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). A
final decision may be reopened at any time on motion of the Director of the
Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC).
Because of new developments described in this Director’s Order, the {date} Final Decision under [Part B]of the Act is hereby vacated and your case reopened under
this provision.

BACKGROUND

{Provide a concise and accurate synopsis of the
claim’s history. Some sample paragraphs are provided here, though these should
be altered to tailor-fit the specifics of the case.}

The evidence of record shows that {claimant name}
filed Form [EE-1 or 2] (Claim for [Survivor]
Benefits under the EEOICPA) under Part B [and/or E, as appropriate]
on {date}. It was asserted that the employee
{employee name} developed {cancer type} as a
result of employment that is potentially located at Westinghouse Electric Corp.
in Bloomfield, New Jersey. Medical documentation established the claimed
condition.

Under the Act, most cancer cases must be referred to the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), a division of
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in order to receive a dose
reconstruction. A dose reconstruction allows the Department of Labor (DOL) to
run a program that provides a number called the probability of causation
(PoC). Under Part B of the Act, a cancer is “at
least as likely as not” related to employment at a covered facility if the PoC
is 50% or greater. In your case, the PoC was calculated to be {XX.XX%}.

As a result, on {date}, the district office issued a recommended decision denying
the claim under Part B of the Act because the PoC was less than 50%.

The recommended decision was
forwarded to the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) in accordance with our
procedures for an independent assessment and issuance of a final decision. On {date}, the FAB issued a Final Decision, affirming the
recommended decision to deny the claim.

DISCUSSION

Under the
Act, there is a provision that allows for payment of some cases regardless of a
previous PoC. This provision becomes available when employees are included in
a class of the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). To be included as a member in a
class of the SEC, the employee must be diagnosed with a specified cancer and
meet all the employment requirements of the SEC class.

A new class
may be added to the SEC if NIOSH determines that they are unable to complete
the dose reconstruction process for certain employees. NIOSH can make such a
determination on its own or based upon a petition from individuals. NIOSH evaluated
such a petition and recently completed the approval process. Effective May 5, 2010, a class of employees who worked at Westinghouse Electric Corp., as defined below, was added to the
SEC. The new SEC class is designated as follows:

All Atomic Weapons Employer employees
who worked at Westinghouse Electric Corp., Bloomfield, New Jersey, from August
13, 1942 through December 31, 1949, for a number of work days aggregating at
least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination
with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes
of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.

CONCLUSION (Note: This paragraph is particularly important)

Based on the designation of this
new class into the SEC, the district office has reviewed the file and finds
there is sufficient evidence to warrant reopening of this claim. The evidence
of record shows that the employee worked {describe evidence that shows
the employee worked for at least 250 work days at
Westinghouse Electric Corp. during the designated
years for the new class in the SEC}.
This demonstrates that the employee performed work at Westinghouse Electric
Corp. at least 250 work days within the designated time period for the SEC
class. Moreover, the evidence establishes the employee was diagnosed with {type
of cancer}, a SEC-specified cancer.

The above findings indicate
potential eligibility as a member of the SEC. Accordingly, the Final
Decision pursuant to Part B is hereby vacated, and the case is reopened so that
a new recommended decision can be issued.

If you disagree with the recommended decision, you will have
the opportunity to file an objection and request an oral hearing or a review of
the written record.

{City of district office}

{Name of District Director}

District
Director

CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE

I hereby certify that
on a copy of the Director’s Order
was sent by regular mail to the following: